New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (Staten Island Development Center) v. New York State Div. of Human Rights
| Decision Date | 21 November 1990 |
| Parties | In the Matter of NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (STATEN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CENTER), Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Paul R. Kietzman (Richard P. Wolfe, of counsel), Albany, for petitioner.
Lawrence Kunin (Rosamond Prosterman, of counsel), New York City, for respondents.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and PAUL KANE, CASEY, LEVINE and MERCURE, JJ.
Respondent George Sigalos (hereinafter respondent) was employed by petitioner as a senior personnel administrator. After respondent was passed over for promotion to a provisional associate personnel administrator, he filed a complaint with respondent State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the Division) alleging that he was not promoted in retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by the Human Rights Law (see, Executive Law § 296[1][e] and because of discrimination based on sex and creed (see, Executive Law § 296[1][a]. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge recommended findings of discrimination in retaliation for respondent's opposition to forbidden practices but no discrimination based on sex and creed. The Division's Commissioner adopted these findings and ordered respondent's provisional appointment to associate personnel administrator, back pay and, inter alia, $10,000 for mental anguish. This proceeding was commenced to challenge the determination and it has been transferred to this court for resolution (see, CPLR 7804[g].
Petitioner contends that the record fails to support a determination of retaliation, relying essentially on our decision in Matter of Mohawk Finishing Prods. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 83 A.D.2d 970, 442 N.Y.S.2d 816, affd 57 N.Y.2d 892, 456 N.Y.S.2d 749, 442 N.E.2d 1260. In Matter of Mohawk, we held that charges of discriminatory retaliation may be sustained only if the practice at issue later was determined to be statutorily forbidden. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals explicitly failed to resolve the proper standard applicable in discriminatory retaliation cases. The court found it unnecessary in resolving the appeal to adopt the standard specified by this court or that invoked by Federal courts under comparable Federal legislation, which would find discriminatory retaliation if the employee reasonably believed that the employer had engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices (id., at 894, 456 N.Y.S.2d 749, 442 N.E.2d 1260). It, therefore, remains an open question as to the proper standard in a retaliatory discrimination case such as this.
Upon reflection, we are of the view that the reasonable belief standard is appropriate. Considering the remedial nature of the Human Rights Law and an explicit statutory admonition to construe the law liberally (see, Executive Law § 300), it strikes us that a person who suffers retaliation after reasonably acting to protect others from forbidden discrimination should be protected. Otherwise, employees would be hesitant to raise objections to questionable practices, a result contrary to the purposes of the Human Rights Law. The standard enunciated in our decision in Matter of Mohawk now seems too strict and at odds with the need for broad interpretations of the Human Rights Law. For these reasons, we adopt what has been identified above as the Federal standard for retaliatory discrimination cases.
Applying this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sacay v. Research Foundation of City Univer. of Ny, 97-CV-4002(NG).
...USA, Inc., 963 F.Supp. 200, 211 (E.D.N.Y.1997) (citing New York State Office of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities v. New York State Div. Of Human Rights, 164 A.D.2d 208, 563 N.Y.S.2d 286 (3d Dep't 1990)). In order for a plaintiff to show that she engaged in protected activity,......
-
Murphy v. Cadillac Rubber & Plastics, Inc., 95-CV-422H.
... ... Rubber & Plastics, Inc., Lockport, New York; Cadillac Rubber & Plastics Injected Rubber ... discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2, et seq., he New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 et seq., ... by plaintiff John Murphy for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted (Item ... 82, 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992); New York State Office of Mental Retardation v. New York State Div. of ... Hospital for Joint Diseases & Medical Center, 53 A.D.2d 627, 384 N.Y.S.2d 203 (2d Dep't ... ...
-
Reed v. A.W. Lawrence & Co., Inc.
...looked to federal case law in expounding the [New York] Human Rights Law"); New York State Office of Mental Retardation v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 164 A.D.2d 208, 563 N.Y.S.2d 286, 287 (3rd Dept.1990) ("we adopt ... the Federal standard for retaliatory discrimination We review ......
-
Lore v. City of Syracuse
...223, 693 N.Y.S.2d 24 (N.Y.App. Div. 1st Dep't 1999); New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 164 A.D.2d 208, 210-11, 563 N.Y.S.2d 286 (N.Y.App. Div.3d Dep't 1990). Therefore, to the extent plaintiff's claims of retal......